What is the difference between a balanced budget amendment and never

[WillK]

raising the debt ceiling again? Let's take a straightforward amendment that requires the budget to be constantly balanced. There is no difference between this and not raising the debt ceiling. The two achieve the exact same outcome. The whole notion of a bill to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a balanced budget amendment is an inherent contradiction. The latter could be achieved simply by not raising the debt ceiling (Congress goes home today) plus legislation prohibiting all future generations from ever raising the debt ceiling.

This is incorrect.  

There are current expenditures for which the government has created an obligation to pay.  I gave an example in another thread of architecture, engineering and construction firms working on an infrastructure project here in Boston -- i gave that example becuase I work for one of those firms.  The project is funded by the feds under a contract that has already been executed and work has been done during the month of July for which invoices are about to be submitted.  Failure to pay those invoices is not the same as enacting a balanced budget amendment.  

Furthermore, cash flow management can require short term borrowing since the timing of inflows and outflows are not always matched (this is how all businesses generally operate).  Forbidding any borrowing would make government operations dysfunctional.  

[WillK]

But those contracts are paid out of discretionary spending ...

Based on a previously adopted budget.  If a balanced budget amendment were put in tomorrow it would affect the upcoming budget but not the one previously adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That short term problem is what makes not raising the ceiling different than an amendment.

[WillK]

To me, the problem with not raising the debt ceiling next week is the chaos and uncertainty it would create.   

I think a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea, but its impact is on the future budget processes and not throwing the current system into confusion.

But those contracts are paid out of discretionary spending ...

Based on a previously adopted budget.  If a balanced budget amendment were put in tomorrow it would affect the upcoming budget but not the one previously adopted.

Fair enough, but these previously adopted budgets would soon fade into the past, and Congress would have to drastically cut discretionary spending, including the types of contracts to which you refer. The difference you point out is basically only one of a short-term implementation lag.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That short term problem is what makes not raising the ceiling different than an amendment.

Ok, it is different for the very short term. But in the long term, not raising the ceiling would also be a decision that could be reversed by a democratic majority, while an amendment would require a supermajority. That long term impact has multiples more impact than anything that happens in the next year.
[/quote]